Hi Bob,   
      
   On Wed 2039-Feb-16 13:37, BOB KLAHN (1:123/140) wrote to RICHARD WEBB:   
      
    RW> I think they were misinterpreting some of what they were   
    RW> seeing.  Islamic group members were vocal supporters, and   
    RW> some former brotherhood members as well from what I"ve read   
    RW> since, but they all say the same thing.  Ideology has no   
    RW> place in this, we've got to get changes made for the   
    RW> benefit of the citizens, then we're going to worry about   
    RW> the rest, but this inresponsive government's gotta go.   
      
   BK>  That's how I see it. They were lining up against a bad   
   BK>  government. There is nothing for us to do there, but stand back    
   BK> and let it happen.   
      
   INdeed, which is what we should have been doing all along   
   instead of pouring millions in.   
      
      
   BK>>  Iran was no real threat to the US from the beginning. Iran did   
   BK>> turn to democracy, and even supported the US invasion of   
   BK>>  Afghanistan and the democratization of Iraq. Bush paid them back   
   BK>> by kicking them in the teeth. The current regime in Iran came  after   
   BK>> that.   
      
    RW> EH?  1979-80 didn't look like a friendly democratic regime   
    RW> to me.  I grant they were growing that direction.  IN fact,   
      
   BK>  By 2001 they were supporting the US in the WOT. However, Bush    
   BK> needed enemies more than he needed allies.   
      
   MIght be, but still imho appeared to be another despotic   
   state, iow a theocracy.   
      
    RW> I've argued this for years.  Part of U.S. intervention   
    RW> should be the assistance in building a stable   
    RW> constitutional democracy.  THat should be an assumption   
    RW> going in, and an expectation of those who ask our help.   
    RW> Anything else and the troops and equipment stay home.   
      
   BK>  Exactly what I am thinking.   
   That imho is the only justifiable reason for any war which   
   is not for the purpose of directly defending U.S. teritory.   
      
      
      
   BK>> Since mid Dec of last year, Tunisia and Egypt have had   
   BK>>  successful rebellions. Jordan, Algeria, Yemen and Bahrain have   
   BK>> been subject to enough protests to force the governments to make   
   BK>> changes.   
      
    RW> RIght, and that one could still blow up even though the   
    RW> vote is in.  There's still some pretty bad blood in Sudan.   
      
   BK>  Yep. It could. Which is why the US needs to get out of Iraq and    
   BK> Afghanisan, so we can have a credible military to support   
   BK>  democratic govts when the locals establish them.   
      
   wHole region is still a powderkeg, and likely to get worse   
   as climate conditions change.   
      
    RW>> The question is what   
    RW>> they'll do if they get their wish.  WIll they work with   
    RW>> secular leaders to actually govern in the interest of all   
    RW>> the people or settle for nothing less than rule by their   
    RW>> ISlamic law?  That's the question we should be asking, and   
    RW>> keep on asking before we pour in any support at all.   
      
   BK>>  That's a question we should ask, but it's not the question that   
   BK>> should decide our actions at this point. We need to support   
   BK>> democracy. Supporting a country on the basis of how it suits our   
   BK>> needs is how we lose countries. It's how we are losing in Iraq  and   
   BK>> Afghanistan. It's how Iran and Venezuala turned against us.  It's   
   BK>> how we lost in Vietnam.   
      
   Agreed, to a point.  Local self determination is always   
   preferrable, but i have the same objections to a "christian" theocracy, or any   
   other theocracy for that matter.   
      
      
   BK>>  We need to look at one thing only, what is best for the people   
   BK>> there.   
      
    RW> Indeed, that should be the biggest factor in our decision.   
      
   But it rarely is, it's usually commercial interests that   
   carry the day.   
      
    RW> Agreed, so that's the next question, who's version of   
    RW> "islamic " or sharia are we going with?  I wouldn't support   
    RW> the Wahhabi version at all.   
      
   BK>  Which takes us back to the Wahabi, and the Saudis, being the  prime   
   BK> source of anti-US terror.   
      
   OF course it does, and the ease with which they can coopt   
   democracy movements over there.   
      
   BK>>  Isn't it interesting that the biggest claim of superiority we  can   
   BK>> make against a related religion is that we *IGNORE* our own   
   BK>> religious teachings and traditions.   
      
    RW> Indeed, but there again, what are "our own?"  MOst of us   
    RW> granted are Christian in one form or another.  For those of   
      
   BK>  This is a Christian culture, even for those who are not   
   BK>  Christians themselves.   
   Essentially yes.   
      
    RW> us who are JEwish we have many teachings in common.  But   
    RW> then what of the hindus and Buddhists among us?  tHen I'd   
      
   BK>  A small fraction, and not near as peaceful and spiritual as they    
   BK> are painted.   
      
    RW> venture to say that there are more atheists than one might   
    RW> think, they usually choose to keep their beliefs, or should   
    RW> I say lack of beliefs silent and hold the one belief   
      
   BK>  Worldwide the top belief systems are, Christian, Muslim,   
   BK>  Unbeliever. And Catholics are the overwhelming majority of   
   BK>  Christians. IOW, unbelievers are the third largest group. In the    
   BK> stats they are divided between atheists and unbelievers. I think    
   BK> that's to reduce the apparent numbers.   
      
   I would tend to agree with that.  THere is a difference, but that one's hard   
   to explain to many, of all faiths.  The true atheist has no theology, hence   
   a-theist.  HE might keep an   
   open mind however.   
      
    RW> publicly which states that your religious beliefs are your   
    RW> own business and between you and whatever you perceive your   
    RW> ggod to be.  Although I was raised Christian I turned my   
    RW> back on all of it as a young man, and learned soon after   
    RW> doing so the advisability of just keeping my mouth shut and   
    RW> avoiding religious pomp and ceremony whenever possible.   
      
   BK>  True. And now the evangelical extremists are becoming a danger  to   
   BK> this country. Read up on the Millitary Religious Freedom    
   BK> Foundation.   
      
   I have, in fact I've read up on those isues for years.  My   
   period of ahteism sensitized me quite a bit to those issues. See the tagline.   
      
   BK>>  Those who insist our society should be governed by our religious   
   BK>> traditions and laws, going all the way back to the most ancient   
   BK>> ones, can be no better in their conduct than the worst of   
   BK>>  Islamic fundamentalism.   
      
    RW> YOu got that right!!!    What are we talking here?   
    RW> 14th amendment if I'm right (first cup of coffee) and   
    RW> proscription against cruel and unusual punishment.   
      
   BK>  See the tagline.   
      
   NOted, cruel doesn't become unusual once practiced.   
      
   Regards,   
              Richard   
   ...   RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM A THREAT ABROAD, A THREAT AT HOME   
   --- timEd 1.10.y2k+   
    * Origin:  (1:116/901)